Re: Request Input on new Project

["mark_harrison_uk2" <mph@xxxxxxx>]

> Have these pic based devices been mentioned on the list??

I thought so. I defintely showed one at UKHA2003, and I thought I'd
discussed them here since.

>  Some pics please ;-))

/me has no digital camera :-( I will try to get a picture :-)

> ......Does the pir talk native xAP ????

Yes. It outputs a xAP message onto a serial bus.

Regards,

Mark



--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, Frank Mc Alinden <fmcalind@b...> wrote:
> Hi Mark
>
>
> >2: A family of PIC-based products that talk native xAP for
> >temperature, humidity, noise, PIR that use RS485. I'm trying to
get
> >UK pricing for these sorted out at the moment. I also owe Mark a
> >review on the pre-production models (mea culpa.)
>
> Have these pic based devices been mentioned on the list ?? Some
pics please ;-))......Does the pir talk native xAP ????
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: mark_harrison_uk2
>   To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>   Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 10:38 PM
>   Subject: [ukha_d] Re: Request Input on new Project
>
>
>   Frank,
>
>   Ian's relay board and Kevin's C-Bus interface are both good
examples.
>
>   In addition, I can think of three others
>
>   1: The Rabbit-based ethernet controller I reviewed here:
>
>   http://www.automatedhome.co.uk/article.php3?
>   story_id=1204&slashSess=7436f19e06e0c1c297b472b7ab624304
>
>   Worth pointing out that, in addition to the use I put it to, this
>   will also act as an ethernet - serial xAP bridge.
>
>   2: A family of PIC-based products that talk native xAP for
>   temperature, humidity, noise, PIR that use RS485. I'm trying to
get
>   UK pricing for these sorted out at the moment. I also owe Mark a
>   review on the pre-production models (mea culpa.)
>
>
>   3: There's also another hardware board that has been used for
>   embedded control in print shops. It's specialised, industrial,
and if
>   I remember correctly not available as a separate item - only as
part
>   of a whole system. No idea what this runs on, but it does run
native
>   xAP.
>
>   Regards,
>
>   Mark
>
>   --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "armagh_elect"
<fmcalind@b...>
wrote:
>   > Hi Mark
>   >         I meant xAP systems that didnt have a computer as part
of
>   > the installation ...As you know i have dabbled in both
protocols a
>   > little and it seems to me they really need a computer as part
of
>   the
>   > system...My thoughts are that for the small micro both are too
>   > heavy ..although Patrick just mentioned there are pic based
devices
>   > out there....The only hardware that im aware of thats been
>   developed
>   > is Ians Relay Controller and Kevins C_Bus interface...are there
any
>   > other hardware devices talking native xAP..???...
>   >
>   > Frank
>   >
>   >
>   > --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "mark_harrison_uk2"
<mph@a...>
wrote:
>   > > Frank,
>   > >
>   > > Do you mean "complete installations" or
"devices".
>   > >
>   > > Plenty of devices out there, some available commercially.
As
for
>   > > complete installations, as far as I'm aware, every xAP
>   > installation
>   > > in the field has a PC _somewhere_, simply because people
want
to
>   > be
>   > > able to do things like chuck data onto web pages and into
>   > databases.
>   > >
>   > > The most complex installation I know of has a ratio of
about
30-
>   40
>   > > embedded devices per PC.
>   > >
>   > > Certainly, my home installation is nothing like that
complex,
>   only
>   > 1
>   > > embedded device in regular use (the Rabbit-based
controller
for
>   my
>   > hi-
>   > > fi, reviewed on automatedhome)... but several wireless PCs
dotted
>   > > around the house that do web control.
>   > >
>   > > Regards,
>   > >
>   > > Mark
>   > >
>   > > --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, Frank Mc Alinden
<fmcalind@b...>
>   > wrote:
>   > > > Hi Mark
>   > > >             Are there xAP installations out there
that are
not
>   > > using pc,s??
>   > > >
>   > > > Frank
>   > > >   ----- Original Message -----
>   > > >   From: mark_harrison_uk2
>   > > >   To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>   > > >   Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 9:22 PM
>   > > >   Subject: [ukha_d] Re: Request Input on new Project
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >   Gavin,
>   > > >
>   > > >   In addition to xPL you should consider xAP 1.2
>   > > >   (www.xapautomation.org).
>   > > >
>   > > >   xPL and xAP are both forks from xAP 1.1 which have
both
moved
>   > a
>   > > long
>   > > >   way. Indeed the two founders of xPL worked on the
>   > Specification
>   > > of
>   > > >   xAP 1.2 before leaving because they had a different
vision.
>   > > >
>   > > >   There are a number of technical differences between
them.
In
>   > my
>   > > view
>   > > >   (and others in both worlds will have different
opinions),
>   then
>   > > key
>   > > >   difference is that of the central controller model.
>   > > >
>   > > >   xPL is bound up heavily with xPLHal as the
centrepiece.
>   xPLHal
>   > is
>   > > 1:
>   > > >   Good, and 2: Free. I am not aware of any xPL
implementations
>   > that
>   > > >   don't use it.
>   > > >
>   > > >   xAP envisages a far more distributed world where a
central
>   > > controller
>   > > >   is not inherently required by the architecture at
run-
time,
>   > since
>   > > end-
>   > > >   point components can have control logic pushed to
them at
>   > install-
>   > > >   time. In practice, most xAP (90%?) installations in
the
field
>   > > have
>   > > >   ended up with a central controller, and no small
number
of
>   > them
>   > > use
>   > > >   xPLHal (which has good xAP 1.2 support.)
>   > > >
>   > > >   Scalability is good: the largest xAP installation
in the
>   field
>   > > has
>   > > >   about 120 "devices", a mix of
"virtual devices" such as
>   > > connectors
>   > > >   for computer-based stuff, and hardware devices such
as
>   > > temperature
>   > > >   sensors, PIRs, relay controllers etc. I don't know
what
the
>   > > biggest
>   > > >   xPL implementation installed is, but I would be
very
>   surprised
>   > if
>   > > it
>   > > >   didn't scale up to the needs of 99.9% of homes.
Some of
the
>   > more
>   > > >   complex xAP installations are commercial not
domestic.
>   > > >
>   > > >   Regards,
>   > > >
>   > > >   Mark
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >   --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, Gavin Kistner
<gavin@r...>
>   > wrote:
>   > > >   > SUMMARY
>   > > >   > I'm about 6 months away from beginning
construction on
my
>   > own
>   > > >   house,
>   > > >   > and I have extensive automation visions. I
need lots of
>   > solid
>   > > urls
>   > > >   and
>   > > >   > recommendations from you experienced folks for
my
research,
>   > and
>   > > >   would
>   > > >   > like your feedback on an open source project
I'm
>   > contemplating
>   > > >   > beginning for this effort.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > Despite the length of this post, I'm *not*
asking you
to
>   > design
>   > > or
>   > > >   > build my system for me. I'm looking for
feedback.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > HEY THERE
>   > > >   > So, first, if cross-posting to all three of
these lists
is
>   a
>   > > bad
>   > > >   idea,
>   > > >   > please wonk me with a stick of Rightness and
tell me
which
>   > is
>   > > the
>   > > >   > correct group to continue this discussion on.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > Second: Hey there! I'm excited to join the
world of
home
>   > > automaters
>   > > >   as
>   > > >   > more than a spectator, though the
circumstances daunt
me. :)
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > You may look at the below and say "Uhm,
this seems like
an
>   > > insane
>   > > >   > amount of work, when solution _____ would work
just as
>   well.
>   > I
>   > > >   wonder
>   > > >   > why he's decided not to do that." The
answer to those
sorts
>   > of
>   > > >   > questions is probably "Because I'm an
impatient idiot
who
>   > > hasn't
>   > > >   done
>   > > >   > his homework and research properly."
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > Please feel free to yell at me and tell me a
far easier
way
>   > to
>   > > >   achieve
>   > > >   > my goals, though please read as much of the
following
as
>   you
>   > > can
>   > > >   before
>   > > >   > doing so, because if you propose solution
_____ which
>   > actually
>   > > only
>   > > >   > covers 80% of my goals, in my naivete I
probably won't
>   > realize
>   > > that
>   > > >   > it's not the right solution until far later,
and then
I'll
>   > be
>   > > >   cranky :)
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > ROUGH GOALS FOR MY PARTICULAR HOUSE
>   > > >   > I'm a geek, but despite that my goal is to
make the
>   > automation
>   > > as
>   > > >   > transparent as possible. No ugly wall warts,
almost
>   > > no 'attractive'
>   > > >   > master control wallplates, no text-to-speech
computers
>   > > announcing
>   > > >   > trivial things. The interior should look like
a non-
>   > automated
>   > > >   house,
>   > > >   > and work like a non-automated house, with the
exception
of
>   > how
>   > > it
>   > > >   > reacts to its use, and the exception of a few
wall-
mounted
>   > > control
>   > > >   > touchscreens.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > Here's roughly what I'm aiming for:
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * Every (almost) light switch in the house
should be
able
>   to
>   > be
>   > > >   > computer controlled, with about 2/3 of them
dimmable.
>   (Rough
>   > > count
>   > > >   is
>   > > >   > 23 dimmable light 'zones', and 10
non-dimmable.) This
>   > includes
>   > > 4-6
>   > > >   > table/floor lamps.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * 7 zones for music (speaker sets). Any zone
should be
able
>   > to
>   > > >   listen
>   > > >   > to any audio source, in an n-to-n matrix.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * 6 audio sources.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * 1 big TV, and the ability (hopefully) to
route video
>   > signals
>   > > to
>   > > >   the
>   > > >   > wall LCDs and/or any computer in the house.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * 5-6 video sources (3-4 of which are security
cameras)
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * 3 watering zones
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * Light, Temperature, and Humidity sensors in
5-6
>   locations,
>   > > and a
>   > > >   full
>   > > >   > weather station outside also hooked in.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * 7 radiant floor heating zones, controllable
by the
system.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * A few motorized blinds.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * All doors and operable windows with
open/closed
sensors.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * All but one exterior door with computer
controlled
>   > deadbolt,
>   > > >   > auto-opening using something like iButton.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * An RF sensor for buttons activated from the
car.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * My own custom interface, designed by me.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * The ability to set up complex
triggers/macros *after*
>   > > >   installation,
>   > > >   > like: "If the average temperature in the
livingroom is
>   above
>   > > ___
>   > > >   and
>   > > >   > the heating is on, turn it off. If the heat is
already
off,
>   > and
>   > > the
>   > > >   > blinds are open, and the light level in the
room is
above
>   > ____,
>   > > >   close
>   > > >   > the blinds."
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * The ability to view graphs of historical
sensor data
>   > ("show
>   > > me
>   > > >   the
>   > > >   > average temperature in the room over the last
day").
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * I want to buy quality, premade components
and hook
them
>   > up. I
>   > > do
>   > > >   > *not* want to solder. (Not only have I never
been very
good
>   > at
>   > > it,
>   > > >   but
>   > > >   > primarily I want a solution that my friends
can use
just by
>   > > >   spending
>   > > >   > money themselves.)
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * If I can find them, I was really hoping to
use
>   > touchscreen,
>   > > >   wireless,
>   > > >   > LCD thin network clients to both control the
house and
also
>   > use
>   > > >   other
>   > > >   > 'intranet' applications, and browse the web.
Something
in
>   > the
>   > > 14-
>   > > >   17"
>   > > >   > range.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > WHY CAN'T I USE EXISTING SOLUTIONS?
>   > > >   > I dunno, maybe I can. But so far, every system
I've
looked
>   > > suffers
>   > > >   from
>   > > >   > one or more of the following problems:
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * Covers a portion of the system, but not all
of it.
>   > (Lighting
>   > > and
>   > > >   AV,
>   > > >   > but not temperature or watering.)
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * Have expensive components which try and do
too much
work
>   > > >   themselves.
>   > > >   > (I already have a DVD player with 2 video
outputs, a
>   > receiver
>   > > with
>   > > >   6
>   > > >   > video inputs and 2 outputs, and a TV with 3
video
inputs
>   and
>   > 2
>   > > coax
>   > > >   > tuners. Every piece is trying to do the job of
every
other
>   > > piece. I
>   > > >   > don't want a lightswitch that stores complex
lighting
>   > schemes
>   > > when
>   > > >   > that's what the computer will be doing.)
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * Are proprietary, usually in a silly way. I
can't
easily
>   > > extend
>   > > >   the
>   > > >   > system myself later, and probably can't
program it
myself.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > * Have horrific 1980-looking touchpad
interfaces, which
are
>   > > usually
>   > > >   > designed around the hardware's features rather
than the
>   > user's
>   > > >   needs.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > THE SOFTWARE SOLUTION - WHAT I'M (gasp)
PLANNING
>   > > >   > So, what I'm thinking really needs to happen
is to
abstract
>   > the
>   > > >   various
>   > > >   > levels from each other:
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > Interface <-- abstraction layer -->
Control Software <--

>   > > >   abstraction
>   > > >   > layer --> Hardware
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > The project I'm planning (and dreading) is to
write
(open
>   > > source)
>   > > >   the
>   > > >   > middle component in such a way that people can
develop
>   their
>   > > own
>   > > >   > interface programs which communicate with it.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > More importantly, each type of hardware device
(from
>   > different
>   > > >   > manufacturers and using different
technologies) will
have
>   > its
>   > > own
>   > > >   > 'plugin'/DLL written for it, which abstracts
the
>   > implementation
>   > > >   from
>   > > >   > the control interface.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > For a far better visual representation, see:
>   > > >   > http://phrogz.net/tmp/HouseMouse_Block.png
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > CoolTechnologyCompany will release a new
bluetooth
>   > temperature
>   > > >   sensor.
>   > > >   > I (or you) will write the plugin for it that
describes
the
>   > > >   properties
>   > > >   > and methods it supports, and internally knows
how to
>   produce
>   > > the
>   > > >   values
>   > > >   > and perform the methods. I drop the plugin
into my own
>   > > components
>   > > >   > directory, tell the Master Program to rescan
components
and
>   > > >   (without
>   > > >   > restarting the program and crashing the house)
suddenly
the
>   > > admin
>   > > >   side
>   > > >   > of the Master Program knows how to control
that device.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > Note that when I mention this project a lot of
geeks
>   > > >   say "Zeroconf!",
>   > > >   > "Embedded Linux!", thinking that I'm
suggesting that
the
>   > > hardware
>   > > >   > device (the lightswitch) itself is supposed to
expose
its
>   > > >   > functionality. While this would be grand, this
isn't
the
>   > case
>   > > with
>   > > >   99%
>   > > >   > of the existing hardware out there, and that's
what I
want
>   > to
>   > > use.
>   > > >   I
>   > > >   > want a piece of software--the plugin--to
provide the
>   > > abstraction.
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > HELP ME!
>   > > >   > Am I insane? Does this middle Master Program
already
exist?
>   > Can
>   > > I
>   > > >   > accomplish all my goals above without this
level of
>   > abstraction?
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > If I had a solution like this readily
available, would
you
>   > want
>   > > it?
>   > > >   > Does your answer depend on what language it
was written
in,
>   > or
>   > > on
>   > > >   the
>   > > >   > hardware platform (Windows vs. MacOS vs. Linux
vs. BSD)
>   that
>   > it
>   > > ran
>   > > >   on?
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > If I wrote this in Java as an open-source
project,
would
>   you
>   > be
>   > > >   willing
>   > > >   > and able to contribute?
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > I know so little about the amazing array of
hardware
>   choices
>   > > >   available.
>   > > >   > (X10 switches; X10 in-wiring control; Lutron
RadioRA;
>   > Clipsal
>   > > >   C_Bus;
>   > > >   > etc.). My software wouldn't care which system
I ended
up
>   > using,
>   > > but
>   > > >   the
>   > > >   > electrician wiring the house needs to know.
How can I
>   figure
>   > > out
>   > > >   what's
>   > > >   > good and what isn't, and (more importantly)
what the
full
>   > > spectrum
>   > > >   of
>   > > >   > offerings is?
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > In your experience, do professional
automation 'experts'
>   > know
>   > > what
>   > > >   > they're talking about, or do they only know
the
solution or
>   > two
>   > > >   that
>   > > >   > they are a reseller for? Should I hire such a
consultant to
>   > > work
>   > > >   out
>   > > >   > the system, or are they going to just say
"You're
dreaming;
>   > > here,
>   > > >   just
>   > > >   > buy this."
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > Am I dreaming? Is this project too ambitious
to even
think
>   > of
>   > > >   > attempting with ~1 year to go until the house
should be
>   > close
>   > > to
>   > > >   done?
>   > > >   >
>   > > >   > --
>   > > >   > (-, /\ \/ / /\/
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>   > > >               ADVERTISEMENT
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >   UKHA 2004: 15th and 16th May 2004
>   > > >
>   > > >   http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
>   > > >   Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>   > > >   Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
>   > > >   Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
>   > > >   List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
>   > > >
>   > > >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms
of
>   > > Service.
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>   UKHA 2004: 15th and 16th May 2004
>
>   http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
>   Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>   Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
>   Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
>   List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]